Are The Taliban Terrorists?

[Paladin]

Read all about it...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/10/state-department-taliban-is-not-a-terrorist-organization/#ixzz0wRxuINlF

[Roaring Mouse]

Read all about it...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/10/state-department-taliban-is-not-a-terrorist-organization/#ixzz0wRxuINlF

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, 'though its difficult to imagine that the Taliban have any interest in freedom; they represent a particularly barbaric way of life as recently evidenced by the stoning to death of a couple in northern Afghanistan. Given that there have been elections in Afghanistan and a Government has been democratically elected (sort of, lets face it, Khazi rigged the whole thing and his entire Administration is corrupt as hell), the Taliban must surely be classed as terrorists, albeit they seem to be restricting their activities to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I suspect that the Taliban have been left off the list because the Obama Administration are either trying or are preparing to talk to them, having realised that the war isn't going too well - it would probably be going better if Khazi and his pals weren't so thoroughly corrupt, self-interested and utterly useless; why the hell should your average Afghani support the Government when getting them to do anything involves paying a bribe?

Just my thoughts.

[HDR]

The key is do they wage war and terror on anyone who disagrees with them? Or do they support those who do?

If and when our media chooses to report the "activities" of Taliban one will have all the information to decide if they are "One mans freedom fighter" or a garden variety animal who ought to be tried for atrocities.

If you were a freedom fighter would you put someone's baby into an oven and force the parents to listen as the infant screamed in agony or would you shoot the pos?

[Roaring Mouse]

The key is do they wage war and terror on anyone who disagrees with them? Or do they support those who do?

If and when our media chooses to report the "activities" of Taliban one will have all the information to decide if they are "One mans freedom fighter" or a garden variety animal who ought to be tried for atrocities.

If you were a freedom fighter would you put someone's baby into an oven and force the parents to listen as the infant screamed in agony or would you shoot the pos?

I think I've heard enough about them to believe that they should be bombed to hell.

[Paladin]

I think I've heard enough about them to believe that they should be bombed to hell.

Yes, I agree. But I wrestle with the possibilities. High altitude, low yield devices. Or low altitude, high yield devices. Or both...

[ltorlo64]

I heard a conservative speak on the Taliban a couple of weeks ago on either Beck or Hannity. I wish I could remember the name, but I can't, but he was from some think tank and he was a retired LTC from the Army or USMC. Anyway, this guy's stance was that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization because they just want us to leave Afganistan. If we would leave, the Taliban would be perfectly happy to stop fighting us.

He was asked about the Taliban's role in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, and about the ties they have with Al Queda. His response was that the Taliban had joined forces with Al Queda during the war with the USSR and that after the USSR left, Al Queda didn't. The Taliban were not happy with this and were actively trying to find a way to get rid of Al Queda, specifically Bin Laden. The Taliban were even less happy when 9/11 was able to traced back to Afganistan which directed our efforts there. After a few months Al Queda was decimated in Afganistan and the Taliban were pretty well beaten. If we had left at that time the Taliban would have come back to power, but Al Queda, having been removed, would not have been allowed back.

Next thing he talked about was the idea of democracy in Afganistan. In order to have a democracy you have to have an educated populace, which for the most part Afganistan does not have. It is more like the old feudal kingdoms than a place that is trying to be democratic. The people of Afganistan are by in large happy with the feudal system because they can understand it. Democracy and ruling themselves is something they do not grasp. It is different in Iraq where the people are more educated, so elections were not that big a leap. In order to get democracy to gain a foot hold in Afganistan the people need to become educated, not just about democracy, but about all manner of thought, religion, science, art, etc. Until this is done, democracy won't really stand a chance.

After hearing this guy talk and thinking a bit about it, I came to the conclusion that there were three courses of action we could take. 1. Do what we are doing. 2. Leave and let the Taliban go back to ruling the country and if they try to attack us again, bomb the snot out of them again. 3. Stay there, build schools and museums, teach the populace and provide security for them until they are ready to become their own self-sufficient democracy.

The problem with 1 is it seems to be a waste. The problem with 2 is that we have put a lot on the line saying that we have to defeat the Taliban like we defeated the Nazis. If we leave and they are still there then we have lost because we did not complete the objective. (This makes Bush's statement of "Mission Accomplished" seem like it was correct. He just didn't explain himself well). Number 3 in my mind is colonialism. We would have to be there for about 40-60 years to be able to educate at least two, if not three, generations so that there would be a base for a democratic government to stand on.

[HDR]

I think I've heard enough about them to believe that they should be bombed to hell.

I'd seriously question the sanity of anyone who did not share your belief.



Yes, I agree. But I wrestle with the possibilities. High altitude, low yield devices. Or low altitude, high yield devices. Or both...

Rats and other vermin hide in cities where they are close to others who don't have a dog in the fight.


I heard a conservative speak on the Taliban a couple of weeks ago on either Beck or Hannity. I wish I could remember the name, but I can't, but he was from some think tank and he was a retired LTC from the Army or USMC. Anyway, this guy's stance was that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization because they just want us to leave Afganistan. If we would leave, the Taliban would be perfectly happy to stop fighting us.

They made the hit list when they refused to give up bin laden. Unfortunately for them Bush was president not Clinton or Bah-roke.

[aliceinchains]

The Taliban are radicals why should they be considered humane. They are terrorists none the less. What level they are considered i really don't give a shit.

[HDR]

They feed on bottom feeder's waste.

[LAGC]

The Taliban are definitely bad news. I think the real question is: how do we defeat them? Imposing our way of life on them from a top-down military approach doesn't seem to be working. It might just be better to pull out, let the Afghanis fight it out amongst themselves, Karzai's corrupt government will probably be overthrown, but there are enough people in Afghanistan who don't want the Taliban back either, that some new government would probably fill the vacuum. Probably wouldn't be democratic, but at least it wouldn't be a threat.

There's no reason for us to continue to waste American blood and treasure on that piece of land. We should forget about the oil pipeline (the real reason we are still there) and just make due with getting our fuel sources from elsewhere, until we can ween ourselves off our oil dependency altogether by developing alternative energies. I mean, we could remain there for 60 years as an above poster mentioned, spending trillions of dollars, and still be no closer to molding Afghanistan in our image. When Afghanis are ready for democracy, they will seize the moment for themselves.

[gunnutz]

God Damn! Next we'l be wiping their fuckin' ASS!

[HDR]

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, 'though its difficult to imagine that the Taliban have any interest in freedom; they represent a particularly barbaric way of life as recently evidenced by the stoning to death of a couple in northern Afghanistan. Given that there have been elections in Afghanistan and a Government has been democratically elected (sort of, lets face it, Khazi rigged the whole thing and his entire Administration is corrupt as hell), the Taliban must surely be classed as terrorists, albeit they seem to be restricting their activities to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When you put babies in an oven to convince their parents; you're a terrorist.
When you blow up an outdoor market and only kill civilians; you're a terrorist.



I suspect that the Taliban have been left off the list because the Obama Administration are either trying or are preparing to talk to them, having realised that the war isn't going too well - it would probably be going better if Khazi and his pals weren't so thoroughly corrupt, self-interested and utterly useless; why the hell should your average Afghani support the Government when getting them to do anything involves paying a bribe?

Just my thoughts.

As Khazi has already stated informal talks that was a given. The Middle East is corrupt; even getting business is based on bribery. If I was a Muslim I could pay to have a fatwa written against you for no other reason than I felt like it and was willing to pay for it. If 0bama brokers peace it will be checkbook diplomacy for both sides. lol.